Bucyrus I believe that a train stopped on a signalized crossing where the signals have either failed to activate or have been taken out of service is far more likely to get run into than a train stopped on a non-signalized crossing, all other things being equal. The reason being that many of the drivers would be familiar with the crossing, and would be less cautious when approaching a crossing that they believe is protected by automatic signals. The fact that the railroad company requires crews to flag crossings with signals that have been taken out of service is a sure indication that they realize that such a crossing cannot be treated like just any other non-signalized crossing. So the flagging rule is an acknowledgement that drivers will lower their guard and rely on the signals at signalized crossings. It seems to me that railroads should therefore extend the flagging protection to the entire occupation of the crossing by a train when signals have been taken out of service. Obviously if drivers have lowered their guard to the possibility of getting hit by a train, they will have also lowered their guard to the possibility of running into a stopped train.
It seems to me that railroads should therefore extend the flagging protection to the entire occupation of the crossing by a train when signals have been taken out of service. Obviously if drivers have lowered their guard to the possibility of getting hit by a train, they will have also lowered their guard to the possibility of running into a stopped train.
Well I got hit in broad daylight yesterday while flagging a crossing so there goes your logic. You cant fix stupid. If someone is dumb enough to not see the huge train going by, feel the vibration, hear the noise or see the numerous reflective stripes going by, well, thats not the railroads fault. People commenting here have never flagged a crossing before. Standing outside while a 15 mph drag comes through with 150 cars in the middle of the night? With *** of people in cars? Are you kidding me? That is a recipe for disaster. Crew vans are already stretched thin as it is, this would just be another waste of their time.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
zugmann Bucyrus: It seems to me that railroads should therefore extend the flagging protection to the entire occupation of the crossing by a train when signals have been taken out of service. Obviously if drivers have lowered their guard to the possibility of getting hit by a train, they will have also lowered their guard to the possibility of running into a stopped train. But that doesn't that set up a dangerous precedent? From afar, you can not tell whether a crossing is signalized or not. So if someone flags a crossing that has the crossing protection disabled, then won't people start expecting every crossing to be flagged (esp. passive ones)? For me, this isn't a question of whether the crossing protection should have been working or not - but it is a question of drivers having control of their vehicle.
Bucyrus: It seems to me that railroads should therefore extend the flagging protection to the entire occupation of the crossing by a train when signals have been taken out of service. Obviously if drivers have lowered their guard to the possibility of getting hit by a train, they will have also lowered their guard to the possibility of running into a stopped train.
But that doesn't that set up a dangerous precedent? From afar, you can not tell whether a crossing is signalized or not. So if someone flags a crossing that has the crossing protection disabled, then won't people start expecting every crossing to be flagged (esp. passive ones)?
For me, this isn't a question of whether the crossing protection should have been working or not - but it is a question of drivers having control of their vehicle.
Well yes I think that, as you say, flagging inoperative signalized crossings would cause drivers to lower their guard if they became accustomed to the flagging and the might begin to extend this reduced wariness to passive crossings. And that would be another harmful unintended consequence.
However I see the flagging as being relatively rare occurrence, so maybe its effect on lowering drivers’ guard would not be significant. On the other hand, they cross inactive, signalized crossings every day, so the frequency of the experience would be high enough to make a habit of lowering their guard.
coborn35 Well I got hit in broad daylight yesterday while flagging a crossing so there goes your logic. You cant fix stupid. If someone is dumb enough to not see the huge train going by, feel the vibration, hear the noise or see the numerous reflective stripes going by, well, thats not the railroads fault. People commenting here have never flagged a crossing before. Standing outside while a 15 mph drag comes through with 150 cars in the middle of the night? With *** of people in cars? Are you kidding me? That is a recipe for disaster. Crew vans are already stretched thin as it is, this would just be another waste of their time.
That's a good point, and of course, you can't really fix reckless [saw a guy try to turn a 90 degree corner at 50+ : wiped out, flipped a 360 and kept going]. Maybe the safer answer would be to carry some device that could be placed there that gives of a lot of flashing lights of differing colors - like police or firetruck flashers? Then retrieve it after?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
If there is increased awareness at passive crossings - maybe we should start tearing out the gates and lights?
I touched upon this in the other thread. We think we are making something less dangerous, and we end up making it MORE dangerous since it allows people to lower their guard. You flag the head end of a train because it isn't occupying the crossing. I get that. But once it occupies the crossing - shouldn't it become an issue of a driver paying enough attention that he doesn't crash into stuff? If someone hits the side of a train at a marked crossing - you really think someone waving their little lantern is going to do anything?
Hope you're OK Coburn. You have a great point - some of those that don't get to play in traffic underestimate the risks.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
coborn35 Bucyrus: I believe that a train stopped on a signalized crossing where the signals have either failed to activate or have been taken out of service is far more likely to get run into than a train stopped on a non-signalized crossing, all other things being equal. The reason being that many of the drivers would be familiar with the crossing, and would be less cautious when approaching a crossing that they believe is protected by automatic signals. The fact that the railroad company requires crews to flag crossings with signals that have been taken out of service is a sure indication that they realize that such a crossing cannot be treated like just any other non-signalized crossing. So the flagging rule is an acknowledgement that drivers will lower their guard and rely on the signals at signalized crossings. It seems to me that railroads should therefore extend the flagging protection to the entire occupation of the crossing by a train when signals have been taken out of service. Obviously if drivers have lowered their guard to the possibility of getting hit by a train, they will have also lowered their guard to the possibility of running into a stopped train. Well I got hit in broad daylight yesterday while flagging a crossing so there goes your logic. You cant fix stupid. If someone is dumb enough to not see the huge train going by, feel the vibration, hear the noise or see the numerous reflective stripes going by, well, thats not the railroads fault. People commenting here have never flagged a crossing before. Standing outside while a 15 mph drag comes through with 150 cars in the middle of the night? With *** of people in cars? Are you kidding me? That is a recipe for disaster. Crew vans are already stretched thin as it is, this would just be another waste of their time.
Bucyrus: I believe that a train stopped on a signalized crossing where the signals have either failed to activate or have been taken out of service is far more likely to get run into than a train stopped on a non-signalized crossing, all other things being equal. The reason being that many of the drivers would be familiar with the crossing, and would be less cautious when approaching a crossing that they believe is protected by automatic signals. The fact that the railroad company requires crews to flag crossings with signals that have been taken out of service is a sure indication that they realize that such a crossing cannot be treated like just any other non-signalized crossing. So the flagging rule is an acknowledgement that drivers will lower their guard and rely on the signals at signalized crossings. It seems to me that railroads should therefore extend the flagging protection to the entire occupation of the crossing by a train when signals have been taken out of service. Obviously if drivers have lowered their guard to the possibility of getting hit by a train, they will have also lowered their guard to the possibility of running into a stopped train.
I have flagged lots of crossings. But I know what you are saying. Flagmen get run over sometimes. There seems to be quite a propensity for drivers to hit cops when they have somebody pulled over. You mentioned the movement and vibration, etc. That probably helps reduce run-into-train crashes compared to situations where a train is standing still on a crossing. I realize that flagging the whole train over the crossing would be a lot of work, but still, it would only be for some temporary duration at a particular crossing. In the case of this Chicago double crash, I bet those drivers would not have hit the train if it were being flagged with a fusee.
It was reported that they flagged with a fusee to enter the crossing, and that they left the fusee burning to continue to provide protection. For all I know, the fusees may have been burning when the drivers hit the tank cars, but I tend to doubt it. It would interesting to know the answer to that question if it can be answered.
Around here, sometimes when a traffic light at a busy intersection is out, the police will park with flashers on and manually direct the traffic. Might be dangerous, I suppose, but it works. And that does not lead to more disregarding of the light when it is back in operation. The key element is that it is rare.
zugmann I touched upon this in the other thread. We think we are making something less dangerous, and we end up making it MORE dangerous since it allows people to lower their guard.
I touched upon this in the other thread. We think we are making something less dangerous, and we end up making it MORE dangerous since it allows people to lower their guard.
Yes there is an unintended consequence to adding a safety measure that arises from the safety measure making the user less careful because he or she relies on the safety measure. Somebody invented a table saw on which you can touch the spinning blade and it stops instantly.
It stops so fast that it causes lots of damage to the saw, but it won’t cut you. But even if the cost were no higher than a conventional table saw, I am not so sure I would want to become habituated to the safety saw. Lowering you guard and relying on the safety saw, might lead to getting your fingers cut off in the jointer.
Bucyrus Yes there is an unintended consequence to adding a safety measure that arises from the safety measure making the user less careful because he or she relies on the safety measure. Somebody invented a table saw on which you can touch the spinning blade and it stops instantly. It stops so fast that it causes lots of damage to the saw, but it won’t cut you. But even if the cost were no higher than a conventional table saw, I am not so sure I would want to become habituated to the safety saw. Lowering you guard and relying on the safety saw, might lead to getting your fingers cut off in the jointer.
Yes there is an unintended consequence to adding a safety measure that arises from the safety measure making the user less careful because he or she relies on the safety measure. Somebody invented a table saw on which you can touch the spinning blade and it stops instantly. It stops so fast that it causes lots of damage to the saw, but it won’t cut you. But even if the cost were no higher than a conventional table saw, I am not so sure I would want to become habituated to the safety saw. Lowering you guard and relying on the safety saw, might lead to getting your fingers cut off in the jointer.
So why would someone become habitual to crossing lights (or other crossing lights)? Even worse than losing a finger or two...
zugmann Bucyrus: So why would someone become habitual to crossing lights (or other crossing lights)? Even worse than losing a finger or two...
Bucyrus: So why would someone become habitual to crossing lights (or other crossing lights)? Even worse than losing a finger or two...
Well I am just saying that I have a choice whether or not to buy and use that safety saw. It could save my fingers, that I would have otherwise accidentially cut off. But it could also lull me into a false security that could cause me to lose fingers that I would have otherwise retained by being more careful.
For better or worse, I see the crossing lights as having that same potential unintended consequence. But for that to happen, you have to have a failure to activate on top of just letting your guard down.
With the saw, the greatest danger would be to get used to it, become less careful, and then have an accident with an unprotected saw or other power equipment.
Bucyrus But for that to happen, you have to have a failure to activate on top of just letting your guard down.
But for that to happen, you have to have a failure to activate on top of just letting your guard down.
So, don't let your guard down. Same thing with the saw...
Safeguards are there to assist; but should never be relied upon.
zugmann Bucyrus: But for that to happen, you have to have a failure to activate on top of just letting your guard down. So, don't let your guard down. Same thing with the saw... Safeguards are there to assist; but should never be relied upon.
Bucyrus: But for that to happen, you have to have a failure to activate on top of just letting your guard down.
That is true, but it runs against human nature. Keeping yourself on guard is work. So machine guards and other safety devices can sometimes be labor savers as well as protectors from harm. No use being vigilant of you don't have to.
Its called "SawStop" and it stops the blade in 5 milliseconds.
Also drops the blade beneath the table surface.
Destroys the blade, so your cost is the blade and the brake cartridge.
Beats the cost of having a finger sewn back on by several thousand dollar.
The technology was originally offered to Rockwell Delta for their Unisaw, but they refused because they though it indicated their saw was unsafe.
Their thinking was that by having a brake on the blade people would think the saw too dangerous to use...like any tool, used incorrectly it is dangerous.
And any woodworker will tell you this..."it isn't a matter of if I cut myself, but only a matter of when".
Sawstop now manufactures the entire saw themselves, and it sells quite well.
The reason I bring it up is this.
Last year, a "armature" inexperienced wood worker sued Ryobi because he managed to cut off a fore finger and mangle his thumb badly.
His contention was that, because the technology to prevent his accident was out there in the form of the SawStop, Ryobi had a duty to install this technology or one like it on their saws, and had they done so, his accident would have been prevented.
Fact of the case are pretty simply.
His had never used a table saw before, he hired out as a sub contractor installing wood flooring.
His employer showed him how to use the saw, the miter gauge, the rip fence and in his words, "trained me" for a day or so before letting him work solo.
The saw was a small, table top portable version.
The man needed a small section of flooring ripped to width, so, with the saw on the floor at a bad height to use and with out the rip fence in place, and with the blade raised all the way to its full height, he tried to freehand rip a piece of oak flooring.
The wood bound up, he tried to force it through the blade, slipped and shoved his hand into the blade.
Any wood worker with any experience will shudder at the though of freehand ripping any wood on a table saw, any saw, ever.
But his effort to sue worked, he won because the jury agreed that, even though he testified that he was indeed using the tool incorrectly, had failed to use the correct and safe method to rip the wood, had failed to use the fence that is clearly marked, and even though he had read the users manual, Ryobi had a duty to protect him from his own actions.
Which has every table saw manufacturer contemplating two things...either buying and using SawStop technology, or exiting the table saw business.
To add insult to all of this, the saw that the man cut himself on was made after SawStop came out with their saw, so the jury found that Ryobi intentionally left such a safety feature off...now the technology and the blade brake add about $400.00 to the cost of a saw...and the table top saw this guy was using is a throw away $199.99 intended to be a contractors portable tool...at $600.00 no one will ever buy one.
Point is, there are people out there, in great numbers it seems, who expect others to protect them from themselves, be it by using a cheap power tool in an unsafe and incorrect manner or be it driving across a set of railroad tracks with out paying attention.
Bucyrus zugmann: I touched upon this in the other thread. We think we are making something less dangerous, and we end up making it MORE dangerous since it allows people to lower their guard. Yes there is an unintended consequence to adding a safety measure that arises from the safety measure making the user less careful because he or she relies on the safety measure. Somebody invented a table saw on which you can touch the spinning blade and it stops instantly. It stops so fast that it causes lots of damage to the saw, but it won’t cut you. But even if the cost were no higher than a conventional table saw, I am not so sure I would want to become habituated to the safety saw. Lowering you guard and relying on the safety saw, might lead to getting your fingers cut off in the jointer.
zugmann: I touched upon this in the other thread. We think we are making something less dangerous, and we end up making it MORE dangerous since it allows people to lower their guard.
23 17 46 11
Although it is a great story, and very instructive, it really is a bit of a stretch as an analogy to the rail crossing controversy, since the latter involves safety in a public setting. I also have some concerns about how widespread the negative sentiments concerning our legal system have become. I also wonder what railroad employees think about the safety devices you use in your daily work, which have a long history, in some cases (air brakes, the Janney coupler, etc.).
Ed,
I can certainly see the advantage of a table saw that can’t cut the operator. But I can also see the unintended consequence of this safe saw causing an injury that would not have happened otherwise. If all power tools had this technology as a standard requirement, I suppose wood workers would all be better off.
But having an operator using a saw with this feature as well as other saws without it seems like it could ironically lead to an injury with the non-safe saws. It is interesting that Rockwell turned it down because they did not want to acknowledge that their saws were unsafe. That is a kind of oddball marketing decision that I could see a company making. But my reservations are not related to that.
.
Here is a little more recent news on the double run-into-train crash in Chicago. I don’t see much sympathy for the position that the drivers were at fault for not seeing the tank cars. Most interesting is the article comment-assumption that the car headlights failed to illuminate the reflectors:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-15/news/ct-met-car-train-crash-20110214_1_freight-train-gates-and-warning-devices-warren-flatau
One of the victims does say that there were no flares burning.
Authorities said that it was likely that the victims could not possibly see the tank cars.
Officials said that the absence of a functioning rail-crossing warning system was a key factor contributing to the crashes.
Investigators will examine why the headlights of the automobiles did not illuminate the reflective strips on the tankers, officials said.
I think this is the slippery slope that the FRA has headed the railroad industry into with their reflector mandate.
In regard to unintended consequences, I believe that the nationwide push to add yield signs to non-signalized crossings will increase the crash rate rather than reduce it. Because a yield is perceived to be the most permissive of traffic control signs, it will deemphasize the gravity of the crossbuck in the minds of most drivers.
As I mentioned, recent studies have shown that most drivers do not know that a crossbuck means yield, so there is a nationwide push to add yield signs to all non-signalized crossings. Yet, while relatively few drivers realize that a crossbuck means yield, nearly all drivers believe that a crossbuck means you should stop for a train. From a practical standpoint, what is the difference between these two interpretations? I don’t see any.
Here is an interesting discussion among traffic control people about adding yield signs to grade crossings. It is an amazing revelation of just how much thought is being put into this on an official regulatory level, and how nuanced and complex the issue is:
http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/OpsPublic.nsf/discussionDisplay?Open&id=79EB6070A883C48B852576BA00673DBF&Group=signs&tab=DISCUSSION
There is concern about degrading the general driver respect for the yield sign by placing it on all passive grade crossings. The same concern is extended to placing stop signs at passive grade crossings.
There is the common confusion over what a yield sign actually means with one person concluding that drivers do not cross at speeds slow enough to enable them to yield. Yet, it is yielding that should determine the crossing speed, not the other way around.
The last comment is from someone who stopped at the stop sign on a rural grade crossing and was nearly rear-ended by a Georgia State trooper approaching the crossing at 65mph.
Here is another interesting answer to the question of whether a crossbuck means yield. It says the answer is yes and no. No wonder drivers are confused.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_crossbuck_signs_considered_a_yeild_signs
They go on to say that a crossbuck requires a driver to stop and look for trains. Of course, that is incorrect, but is a common misunderstanding of the yield sign. There is no requirement to stop at a crossbuck if no train is approaching, and doing so would create a risk of being rear-ended by a following driver who understands that there is no requirement to stop.
Bucyrus I don’t see much sympathy for the position that the drivers were at fault for not seeing the tank cars. Officials said that the absence of a functioning rail-crossing warning system was a key factor contributing to the crashes. Investigators will examine why the headlights of the automobiles did not illuminate the reflective strips on the tankers, officials said. I think this is the slippery slope that the FRA has headed the railroad industry into with their reflector mandate.
Isn't it human nature to assign added significance to the perspective that one prefers, personally?
Those preferring the railroad's position will never want to get up off of their convictions that if the car had yielded as required, the collision would never have been possible, while those who side with the motorist will never relinquish their commitment to the argument that,. had the crossing protection been working properly..the undue hazard would have presented only a fraction of the risk.
Oddly enough, I was coming out of a restaurant the other night, near an elevated two track main, where substantial overgrowth had grown through years of neglect, along the side of the tracks.
Being winter, the leaves were all off the overgrowth, so only branches remained.
Hearing a train, I looked up, and saw segments of triple crown trailers appearing and disappearing rapidly, almost as if flashing at me. The overgrowth was not thick enough to be obscuring the cars to the degree I was experiencing, so I took a harder, more labored look at what I thought I was witnessing.
After a few seconds, I realized that there was a train of black tanker cars standing motionless on the track between the moving triple crown train, and the band of leafless overgrowth in front of me.
Not knowing (at first) what i was looking at, played a big role in my confusion, even though I knew to expect to see trains in the area I was looking at.
FWIW, I only saw the strips of reflectors AFTER the fact. Pretty much as the end result of trying to confirm that reflectors were present,....I think that the small sections (of reflector) parallel and comparatively close to the ground... are potentially misleading.
I guess that black tanker cars pose an even greater potential for urban legend than the definitive "black helicopters" we are so used to hearing about?
Very true. Those folks on whose turf the accidents happen will naturally blame the "intruder," no matter what the specific situation might be, as above with the black tankers. And the intruders will blame the owner/workers. So you have gridlock, with lots of insults flying in each direction. Even seeking solutions to reduce the potential for accidents is rejected as unnecessary and too expensive. Lots of smoke, not much light.
I think there is an aspect to it where the argument is "OK, but the railroad is professional, so they are expected to know what they are doing, and since they routinely cross public highways,.. they understand the special risks they present ....MORE SO than your average dumb cluck behind the steering wheel."
it's not at all a matter of who sinned first, it's a matter of who sinned worst.
Convicted One Isn't it human nature to assign added significance to the perspective that one prefers, personally? Those preferring the railroad's position will never want to get up off of their convictions that if the car had yielded as required, the collision would never have been possible, while those who side with the motorist will never relinquish their commitment to the argument that,. had the crossing protection been working properly..the undue hazard would have presented only a fraction of the risk.
I would expect drivers who get hit by trains or run into the sides of trains to believe that it is the fault of the train. Everybody makes excuses. Drivers will say they did not see the train or hear the horn. They will say the crossing signals were not working. They might even say that they did not believe trains ran on the particular day of the week they were struck.
And of course the railroad company will blame the driver because they believe that trains always have the right of way. The industry draws a line in the sand over that principle as one might expect. However, that only leaves one solution to the problem, which amounts to changing driver behavior. And after failing to do that for the last 175 years, one might conclude that it can’t be done. That leads to the general conclusion that grade crossing victims are intractably stupid, and the remedy will only come when all of them get killed off. However, I believe that there is something else at work here, and that the line in the sand may be actually perpetuating the problem by closing off the search for a solution.
While it is true that drivers blame the railroads and the railroads blame the drivers, the actual fault should not be left up to mere perception. Instead, it should be established by laws. So I find it incredible that after 175 years, we can have grade crossing crashes where the applicable laws are such that the blame cannot be clearly established.
Bucyrus However, that only leaves one solution to the problem, which amounts to changing driver behavior. And after failing to do that for the last 175 years, one might conclude that it can’t be done. That leads to the general conclusion that grade crossing victims are intractably stupid, and the remedy will only come when all of them get killed off.
However, that only leaves one solution to the problem, which amounts to changing driver behavior. And after failing to do that for the last 175 years, one might conclude that it can’t be done. That leads to the general conclusion that grade crossing victims are intractably stupid, and the remedy will only come when all of them get killed off.
No I think you are wrong. It appears that it is the peanut galley that insists upon branding anyone who reacts in a way different from how they themselves (after the benefit of monday morning quarterbacking) would have done it,... to be "stupid" "moronic" and any other number of expletives designed more to make the spouter feel better about themselves, than to contribute anything constructive.
Most intelligent people realize that accidents happen, they aren't planned, and they often are more a result of various stimuli competing for our attention, than a benign result of IQ. I've known some extremely intelligent people who had peculiar priorities, and strange attention spans. So branding the victims 'stupid', is misguided. (but I guess it's fun to call people that we don't agree with 'stupid', since it makes us look smart by comparison?)
Here where I live, the level of safety appliances installed at any given intersection is determined in part based upon relative hazard, and the number of safety related incidences in the history of a particular location. a residential intersection might be given just a 2-way yield protection. If a certain number of accidents transpire over a given time frame, that might be upgraded to a 2-way stop. If accidents persist, that might get upgraded to a 4 way stop, or eventually an automatic signal system.
So far as I know, the measured intelligence of the people expected to use the intersection is not a criteria in determining the upgrade. it's just given that if a lower level of protection isn't giving suitable results, then upgraded protection is the logical pursuit. .
Somewhere along the lines, someone made a determination that an automatic protection appliance was warranted for the location in this story. Subsequent to that, someone who worked for the railroad made a determination that repair to this signalling system was not a priority.
You can bet your bottom dollar that an evaluation of the competence of those two respective thought processes is going to become a component to the ultimate findings, in addition to the criteria of "the driver failed to yield". Both the plaintiff as well as the defendant have the right to the full discovery of facts relevant to the incident.
Convicted One Bucyrus: However, that only leaves one solution to the problem, which amounts to changing driver behavior. And after failing to do that for the last 175 years, one might conclude that it can’t be done. That leads to the general conclusion that grade crossing victims are intractably stupid, and the remedy will only come when all of them get killed off. No I think you are wrong. It appears that it is the peanut galley that insists upon branding anyone who reacts in a way different from how they themselves (after the benefit of monday morning quarterbacking) would have done it,... to be "stupid" "moronic" and any other number of expletives designed more to make the spouter feel better about themselves, than to contribute anything constructive. Most intelligent people realize that accidents happen, ...
Bucyrus: However, that only leaves one solution to the problem, which amounts to changing driver behavior. And after failing to do that for the last 175 years, one might conclude that it can’t be done. That leads to the general conclusion that grade crossing victims are intractably stupid, and the remedy will only come when all of them get killed off.
Most intelligent people realize that accidents happen, ...
Convicted One,
Just to clarify something:
When you begin by saying that you think I am wrong, I assume that you are referring to the position I outlined in the part you quoted from me. But that part you quoted is not my position. It is only my characterization of the industry position, as it exists generally. I do not agree with that position. I believe that would be clear if you consider the whole context of that paragraph from which you quoted. In reading the rest of your comment, I believe my views on this issue of causes and blame are actually about the same as yours.
Bucyrus I assume that you are referring to the position I outlined in the part you quoted from me. But that part you quoted is not my position. It is only my characterization of the industry position, as it exists generally. I do not agree with that position. I believe that would be clear if you consider the whole context of that paragraph from which you quoted.
I assume that you are referring to the position I outlined in the part you quoted from me. But that part you quoted is not my position. It is only my characterization of the industry position, as it exists generally. I do not agree with that position. I believe that would be clear if you consider the whole context of that paragraph from which you quoted.
I'm sorry, I detected a hint of satire in your words, and didn't interpret correctly the side you were on. . my bad. (humble appologies)
Convicted One I'm sorry, I detected a hint of satire in your words, and didn't interpret correctly the side you were on. . my bad. (humble appologies)
No problem. I'm glad you understand.
While there is a consensus among most authorities that the railroad crossbuck means the same as a yield sign at non-signalized crossings, various sources indicate there is a fair amount of confusion over whether it means yield when it is applied to a signalized crossing. Moreover, surveys have shown that very few drivers realize that a crossbuck means yield with either type of crossing.
Here is a link to an authoritative white paper by The Committee on Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings that discusses the state of the art today and where it is headed in the future. Amazingly the authors seem to be demonstrating the same ignorance of the lawful meaning of the crossbuck that surveys indicate most driver have:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/millennium/00096.pdf
At the bottom of page two, it says this:
“The primary purpose of the crossbuck sign is to identify and direct highway users’ attention to the location of an at-grade crossing. Legal obligations imposed upon the driver relative to behavior or conformance are minimal.”
As a matter of fact, the obligation imposed upon a driver by the crossbuck is to yield to trains in order to avoid getting killed. That hardly seems minimal.
Furthermore, it is flat-out incorrect to say that the primary purpose of the crossbuck is to direct drivers’ attention to the location of a grade crossing. That is the secondary purpose. The primary purpose is to inform the drivers of the requirement to yield to trains. And since surveys show that most drivers understand the secondary purpose but are not aware of the primary purpose of yielding, yield signs are being added to all crossbucks in the U.S.
On page one of the linked paper, it says this:
“Engineering and operating practices from the highway and rail modes alone cannot achieve the level of safety desired. Education of the public and enforcement of laws to encourage desirable driver behavior are also major factors.”
From reading what they say about the crossbuck, it appears that that the authors of this paper too need a little more education about the laws.
Here is a crossing safety problem that has the traffic community particularly concerned:
At night, when no trains are approaching or present, signalized and non-signalized crossings look the same to an approaching motorist. Why should that be considered a problem? After all, a driver is supposed to comply with either type of crossing.
The answer is that drivers adjust their caution to match each of the two crossing types, and if they don’t know which type they are approaching, they might mistakenly apply their reduced caution reaction for a signalized crossing to a non-signalized crossing. This is a fatal flaw that has been recognized by traffic and safety experts, and they are seeking a solution that will clearly distinguish the two types of crossings to drivers.
It is a well-known, fundamental human reaction to be less careful of a hazard if that hazard is protected by some type of safety device. And it is unreasonable to expect otherwise even if a person is told to be as careful with or without the safety device.
People naturally rely on a safety device because intuitively, that seems to be the point. I speculate that only a small portion of drivers feel any need to look for trains when approaching a signalized crossing when the signals are not activated. Operation lifesaver tells us that the signals cannot fail, so why should a driver conclude that he or she should look for trains in anticipation of a signal failure?
Furthermore, there are signalized crossings with limited sight lines, on high-speed roads. To properly yield, a driver must anticipate the speed of a possible train. A driver has no way of knowing the speed at which trains might approach. So a driver must anticipate the highest possible train speed, perhaps as much as 80mph or higher. To properly yield to these limited sight crossings, a driver would have to stop and look both ways. Your average highway patrol officer would ticket a driver for stopping on a 60mph highway for an un-activated signalized grade crossing.
So, overall, it is a given, and in many cases, necessary that drivers rely on the signals at signalized crossings. However, at non-signalized crossings, a driver is expected to, and generally realizes, that his or her full attention must be directed to look for trains before crossing since there is no other protection.
Here is the problem: When approaching a grade crossing at night, unless it is an activated signalized crossing, the only visual indicator of the crossing is the crossbuck. Therefore, the driver has no way of knowing whether the crossing is signalized or not, since both types of crossings only display the crossbuck. So a driver is quite likely to approach the crossbuck of a non-signalized crossing with the same limited sense of precaution as when approaching a signalized crossing.
Bucyrus Here is the problem: When approaching a grade crossing at night, unless it is an activated signalized crossing, the only visual indicator of the crossing is the crossbuck. Therefore, the driver has no way of knowing whether the crossing is signalized or not, since both types of crossings only display the crossbuck. So a driver is quite likely to approach the crossbuck of a non-signalized crossing with the same limited sense of precaution as when approaching a signalized crossing.
Well at least it is being recognized. Here in Ga I noticed that all unsignaled crossing in my area suddenly have had a yield sign installed. It is not the standard yellow yield sign but an inverted triangle with red background and white llettering?
Another safety and crossings issue is pedestrians. Here is a UP video showing how they take safety seriously:
http://www.metraupwest.com/media/videos/metra_up_west_flash.shtml
blue streak 1Well at least it is being recognized. Here in Ga I noticed that all unsignaled crossing in my area suddenly have had a yield sign installed. It is not the standard yellow yield sign but an inverted triangle with red background and white llettering?
The yellow Yield sign has been supplanted by the international red and white version in most of the country.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.